|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
The Kingfish posted:The trick is to engage him in painfully good faith until he self-destructs and disappears for a month. So why aren't you doing that, Klanfish? Too busy thinking about the next Klonvocation?
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:See, you're dancing back and forth between "people will choose it automatically in numbers significant enough to nigh-guarantee it" and "some people will choose it, sometimes" in order to avoid actually thinking about your beliefs, because you're afraid. Fear rules you. I think people will choose socialism. It is a fact that people might choose socialism. Those quotes disingenuously portray my argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm literally in favor of a zero hour work week, try again. Sounds good, but I don't it's possible to run our society with zero humans working with our current level of technological development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The trick is to engage him in painfully good faith until he self-destructs and disappears for a month. The trick is to not read this thread until he's got himself probated for another month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I think people will choose socialism. It is a fact that people might choose socialism. Those quotes disingenuously portray my argument. So your argument is nothing, and not worth considering. You are nothing but a waste of space, then? A machine that eats and shits and grinds out inanity?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
LOL ho the hell was what Rudatron wrote a meltdown? I think Effectronica is projecting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sounds good, but I don't it's possible to run our society with zero humans working with our current level of technological development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:The trick is to not read this thread until he's got himself probated for another month. Merely by refusing to suck up, I dominate the minds of random people, terrorizing them as they daily click on the Leper's Colony. Get a life, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:The trick is to not read this thread until he's got himself probated for another month. Somebody's got to do the dirty work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
If y'all really want to silence me for good, and you've got the guts, pay me a visit at home: 1060 W Addison St, Chicago, IL And see if you've got what it takes to kill a man so you don't have to read the words he writes on the Internet anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Don't do this, jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Month to month is fine thanks. Weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Don't do this, jesus. Google the address.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
You're not nearly as pathetic as the Cubs. Also Jesus look at all these uncultured swine who didn't get that classic joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, so this is you just outright acknowledging you've totally failed to engage with what I've been saying? I'm willing to be wrong, but I'm not willing to sit around and act like your garbage arguments are representative of any sort of reasoned discussion. You're saying that a UBI is exactly as easy to convince people to implement as reducing the work week. The historical evidence is against you though. We have successfully reduced the work week several times with overwhelming popular support, but convincing people to accept a UBI is much harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're saying that a UBI is exactly as easy to convince people to implement as reducing the work week. quote:The historical evidence is against you though. We have successfully reduced the work week several times with overwhelming popular support, but convincing people to accept a UBI is much harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If y'all really want to silence me for good, and you've got the guts, pay me a visit at home: Does Rutgers not teach geography (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:Quote me saying this. OK twodot posted:Won't the people who seek value in labor resist a reduction in labor hours? Like I don't see how you lead someone who thinks that labor is intrinsically good into laboring less. Here you assert that the people who oppose a UBI will be exactly as opposed to a reduction in work hours for the same reason. The implication therefore, is that convincing people to accept a shorter work week is exactly as difficult as convincing them to agree to a UBI. twodot posted:If this sentence isn't completely clear to an idiot like you, I am specifically disavowing this claim. Feel free to start communicating better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Does Rutgers not teach geography I should warn you that I have passed through all 36 chambers of Shaolin, so if you want to continue stalking random people you think are me, Nazi creep, you might just find something more than you can handle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Here you assert that the people who oppose a UBI edit: Also even if you are right on every single point, if anyone thinks the group you think I'm talking about is a minority this is all completely irrelevant to anything. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even ignoring the imprecision about "exactly", "people who oppose a UBI" and "people who seek value in labor" are not identical groups. Try again. (Please don't try again, you suck at this real bad). Quote me saying literally anything about people who oppose a UBI if you want to maintain this farce. The original person you were arguing against was talking about "people who seek value in labor" being the primary force to overcome to establish a UBI though: once you win them over then you have the popular support you need (you don't need the very tiny number of oligarchs who oppose both because they prefer a system that benefits them exclusively) But okay, so you agree that it's easier to get popular support for reducing the work week than it is to get popular support for a UBI. Great, then you agree with what Peachfarts said in the first place, that it's a superior strategic play for winning elections in 2017 America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:\But okay, so you agree that it's easier to get popular support for reducing the work week than it is to get popular support for a UBI. Great, then you agree with what Peachfarts said in the first place, that it's a superior strategic play for winning elections in 2017 America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this strategy distinguishable from Republican strategies? My stance with Peachfart has been if they are correct, then we're only left with the strategies Republicans use. If there are other, effective strategies available, you'd do everyone a service by listing them. Telling people that the benefits of automation should be shared by all workers through a reduction in work hours rather than by throwing 20% of them out of work isn't a Republican strategy though? Near as I can tell the Republican strategy appears to be: blame the job losses from automation on unions, Mexicans, black people, and the Chinese while Republicans carry out a full-scale attack on labor rights with the justification that more lovely jobs are better than few good jobs, and that if we just work longer hours for lower pay in worse conditions the job creators will be pleased and bestow jobs upon us. For example: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806660011904614408 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806678853305384960 VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Telling people that the benefits of automation should be shared by all workers through a reduction in work hours rather than by throwing 20% of them out of work isn't a Republican strategy though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
The idea is that the decrease in hours accompanies an increase in pay per hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Oh my loving God. The argument is for people to work less hours overall. Not in one job. In all jobs they may or may not possess. In fact part of the whole point of what is being suggested would be to eliminate second jobs (unless you want to work 2 10 hour a week jobs).
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The idea is that the decrease in hours accompanies an increase in pay per hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Nah arguing that market forces should just push low income workers into working multiple jobs at reduced hours is very specifically a Republican argument, try again. That's not the justification for reducing the work week though. At all. When you reduce the full-time work week you mandate that people receive the same annual pay. When we introduced the eight hour day we didn't say "right hourly pay stays fixed, everyone work two 40 hour jobs instead of one 80-hour job." I don't think you're this stupid, I think you're arguing in bad faith now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
You should achieve what policy you can, and always keep pushing. If you think you can win UBI then you go for UBI, but if you can snag the work week but not UBI, you do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You should achieve what policy you can, and always keep pushing. If you think you can win UBI then you go for UBI, but if you can snag the work week but not UBI, you do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:the one thing is, I'm confused on the substantive differences between leftists and liberals (in the typical enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter sense) on the ground, when it comes to fighting systemic racism. This is a really good post, and surprise surprise, it went totally ignored by the thread regulars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:44
|
|
at the idpol/socialist wars. Any non-stupid economic justice movement is also a racial justice movement , gender justice movement, disability justice movement, LGBT justice movement, etc. We look out for each other, we help each other out, in a coalition of the People Who Are Not Shitheads.
|
WampaLord posted:This is a really good post, and surprise surprise, it went totally ignored by the thread regulars. No, it's a whiny post about "why can't we just ignore race and pretend that everyone must have the right opinions." It's one of many posts about how if you support Bernie you should be treated as a saintly figure. Which is absurd when you say it outright.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
It would make sense if the liberal portion of the coalition wanted to actually change the class structure. The whole problem is that they use idpol as a bludgeon to try and shame you into voting for them while not offering substantial changes to the economic status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
I liked the post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
flashman posted:It would make sense if the liberal portion of the coalition wanted to actually change the class structure. The whole problem is that they use idpol as a bludgeon to try and shame you into voting for them while not offering substantial changes to the economic status quo. And here we go back to people insisting that anti-racism and class struggle are inherently opposed, unless anti-racism is totally subordinated to class struggle. And y'all wonder why people of color didn't vote for Bernie!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
flashman posted:It would make sense if the liberal portion of the coalition wanted to actually change the class structure. The whole problem is that they use idpol as a bludgeon to try and shame you into voting for them while not offering substantial changes to the economic status quo. this statement is more accurate if you change 'liberal' to 'minorities', to fit with your alt-left views.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Thread open? Thread open.  So, Politico has a piece up, entitled, "Meet the new Democrats," that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the DNC: quote:In the only two governors races of 2017, Democrats might end up nominating a longtime Goldman Sachs executive and high-level political financier in New Jersey, while in Virginia the top of the ticket could feature a former George W. Bush voter who describes himself as a fiscal conservative. It's interesting that Bernie's son (son of Sanders?) is supporting Murphy, but right now I share the opinion of his critics: quote:The broadsides from Wisniewski, who served as Sanders’ New Jersey campaign chairman in 2016, have been particularly strident. And Johnson, who describes his candidacy as a potential guiding light for the national party, has warned that a Murphy win could sap energy from base voters — even after the front-runner got campaign help from former Vice President Joe Biden, who at a rally last month in Lyndhurst called the New Jersey race the “single most important” one of the next three years. Right now, the Dems shouldn't be nominating any Goldman Sachs execs, and I'm not sure how anyone can think that's a good idea. It may not be disqualifying as far as the general electorate is concerned, but it's definitely not a plus for most districts/states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
are dems still pretending to represent the interests of PoC? https://twitter.com/samswey/status/872151657626443776 https://twitter.com/mpharkins/status/872186344159752195 anyone who tells you stuff like "will $15/hr minimum wage end racism?" is probably not at all interested in ending racism, or bettering the lives of black people at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Condiv posted:are dems still pretending to represent the interests of PoC? loving unreal. The replies to that too. They'll nominate her again.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:55
|
|
